Russia

[YMix]

Sending money, help organise demonstrations is a far cry from using military force.

But it did end up in the use of force. And without much democracy to show for it.

Does funding women rights groups elsewhere, helping them to organize themselves and aim for political positions also constitute preparing a "coup"? Would the International Committee of the Fourth International mind when money and organisational help is moved from one country to another for the good cause?

Dunno. Ask them.

Silly. Russians provide money to whoever they want too; in fact they do that all the time in their oligarch post-USSR network. I am against using military force however, physical violence in general and disrespecting other nations territorial integrity. So it is very easy for me to reject the armed separatist gangs and Putin's annexation of Crimea.

One man's storming of the Rada is another man's uprising in the Donetsk. Not to mention that the Russians are limited mostly to their post-USSR network. The West is in business around the world.

Maybe the fact that Putin supports the separatists with soldiers, mercenaries and military equipment escaped you.

Go back to my post on the previous page and read again that bit about "a war that Ukraine cannot fight or win". Why do you think I wrote that?

There are people in this country that care and do something about it.

Amaze me.

So the uprising and riddance of Ceausescu was all in vain?

The good and the bad of communism was replaced by the good and the bad of capitalism. Whether it was in vain or not, it depends on your point of view. The West brought us democracy in the sense that we can now vote democratically on which party would serve foreign capital better.

Btw.. would you have mind if Western countries supported the uprising with money, moral support, help organise demonstrations and stuff? Or would that suddenly be honky-dory.

I'll pass on foreign help. The Revolution of 1989 was Russian work all the way. Maybe you should start complaining about it.

[YMix]

Russia 'to join China-led development bank'

Moscow (AFP) - Russia is to sign up to the Chinese-led development bank AIIB, first deputy prime minister Igor Shuvalov said Saturday at an international forum in China, cited by Russian news agencies.

"I'd like to inform you that Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken the decision that Russia will participate in the capital of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)," Shuvalov said at China's Boao Forum, quoted by RIA Novosti state news agency.

The Beijing-backed AIIB, unveiled in October, is a multinational lender that the United States perceives as a threat to the Washington-led World Bank.

It has proved highly successful with countries that are US allies, however, with Britain, Germany, France, Italy and this week South Korea all saying they intend to join the $50 billion (46 billion euro) bank.

Russia has sought to align itself more closely with China in recent years and these efforts have intensified amid a freeze in relations with the Western powers, which have imposed harsh economic sanctions over Moscow's role in the Ukraine conflict.

"We are glad to have the opportunity to build up cooperation in the format of China and the Eurasian Economic Union," Shuvalov said, referring to a free trade union championed by Putin made up of Russia, Kazakhstan, Armenia and Belarus, which came into force in January.

"We in Russia are sure that joint work in developing Eurasian partnership and the Silk Route economic belt will create further opportunities for the development of the countries of the Eurasian Union and China," he said.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said this month that "practical cooperation between China and Russia is based on mutual need" and has "enormous internal impetus and room for expansion."

China is hungry for Russia's vast hydrocarbon resources, while Western sanctions have made seeking stable markets an urgent need for Putin, whose economy has been hit hard by the fall in prices for oil, a major source of revenue.

Both countries are permanent members of the UN Security Council, where they have in the past jointly used their veto power against Western-backed moves such as in the civil war in Syria.

[Parodite]

Sending money, help organise demonstrations is a far cry from using military force.

But it did end up in the use of force. And without much democracy to show for it.

And who used violence exactly and on whose orders? This matters big time if you want to accuse of the West staging a "coup" there.

And as for the level of democracy before and after that "coup"; in the end that is Ukraine's business and struggle that will to continue the coming decades. I posted an interesting link in the Ukraine thread about the political and democratic evolution in the Ukraine. As a democracy Ukraine is only 20 years old. Let's see where they are 10 years from now. Rome wasn't built in one day.

Does funding women rights groups elsewhere, helping them to organize themselves and aim for political positions also constitute preparing a "coup"? Would the International Committee of the Fourth International mind when money and organisational help is moved from one country to another for the good cause?

Dunno. Ask them.

Dodge. It sounds like under no circumstance you want foreign gvts or even NGOs support movements or groups of people in other nation states fighting for more democracy, less corruption etc. Interesting.

Silly. Russians provide money to whoever they want too; in fact they do that all the time in their oligarch post-USSR network. I am against using military force however, physical violence in general and disrespecting other nations territorial integrity. So it is very easy for me to reject the armed separatist gangs and Putin's annexation of Crimea.

One man's storming of the Rada is another man's uprising in the Donetsk.

Sure. But storming the rada and ousting a corrupt crook oligarch president does not compare with annexing part of another countries territory using tanks. Nor does it compare with starting an armed separatist uprising predictably resulting in enormous bloodshed in civil war. But of course there are people who think robbing a gaz station with no casualties is as bad as starting a war with 50.000 dead at the end of the day.

Not to mention that the Russians are limited mostly to their post-USSR network. The West is in business around the world.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. But also a strange observation. With their gaz sales and European dependencies, their robust arms industry with clients all over the world... they have extreme leverage in almost every geo-political power game.

Maybe the fact that Putin supports the separatists with soldiers, mercenaries and military equipment escaped you.

Go back to my post on the previous page and read again that bit about "a war that Ukraine cannot fight or win". Why do you think I wrote that?

I didn't see what you wrote, just a link to a news source saying that a majority in the US senate wants to send "lethal weapons" to the Ukrianinan gvt.

A war that the Ukraine cannot fight or win? What is that about.

There are people in this country that care and do something about it.

Amaze me.

I won't.

So the uprising and riddance of Ceausescu was all in vain?

The good and the bad of communism was replaced by the good and the bad of capitalism. Whether it was in vain or not, it depends on your point of view.

Didn't know it was.. still that bad in Romania. Sorry to hear that. In other instances before/after was definitely not a question of point of view, things in general were really better than before.

The West brought us democracy in the sense that we can now vote democratically on which party would serve foreign capital better.

Sarcasm?

Btw.. would you have mind if Western countries supported the uprising with money, moral support, help organise demonstrations and stuff? Or would that suddenly be honky-dory.

I'll pass on foreign help. The Revolution of 1989 was Russian work all the way.

Interesting. Not looking for an argument here.. just didn't know. Links?

Maybe you should start complaining about it.

If Russia helped the Romanians rid themselves of their psychopathic kleptomaniac dictator and his crazy wife... they get my tip to the hat and a big thank you. Praise where praise is due. Which of course would be a great lesson to some of the more bi-polar black-versus-white cheerleaders; it is better to look at events case by case and not resort to preassumed wrong/good doing because it was "the West", or "Russia" doing it.

[Endovelico]

Parodite,
You should consider that this is a war between those who want a unipolar world where freedom depends on the mood of one player, and a multipolar world where the weaker players may play one party against another, in order to squeeze a little more independence for themselves. I prefer a situation in which China and Russia counterbalance the American hegemonic tendencies, because that will give me a bit more room to make my own decisions. I don't much care about the authoritarian tendencies of the big players - all of them - as long as none of them can impose its will on me. That's why I hope Russia - and China - will be successful in pushing the US back, hopefully behind its own borders. In the international game of upstairs-downstairs you don't mind being downstairs as long as you may be allowed to play the role of butler. I don't care fore upstairs, but I also refuse any part on the downstairs charade. That's why I would have wanted an united Europe, but since the northern Europeans do not care for that - they prefer being servants to being their own masters - I would go and try to do it only with the southern Europeans.

[Parodite]

Parodite,
You should consider that this is a war between those who want a unipolar world where freedom depends on the mood of one player, and a multipolar world where the weaker players may play one party against another, in order to squeeze a little more independence for themselves. I prefer a situation in which China and Russia counterbalance the American hegemonic tendencies, because that will give me a bit more room to make my own decisions. I don't much care about the authoritarian tendencies of the big players - all of them - as long as none of them can impose its will on me. That's why I hope Russia - and China - will be successful in pushing the US back, hopefully behind its own borders. In the international game of upstairs-downstairs you don't mind being downstairs as long as you may be allowed to play the role of butler. I don't care fore upstairs, but I also refuse any part on the downstairs charade. That's why I would have wanted an united Europe, but since the northern Europeans do not care for that - they prefer being servants to being their own masters - I would go and try to do it only with the southern Europeans.

I know that is what this is all about to you. Yes and no.

I don't think the US is the hegemon you take it be.. for starters! Even militarily.. the US is not able to achieve much anywhere in the world. Look at the list of recent failures. It is laughable. Even if they would resort to being 10x more brutal, even if they would unleash all of their military might and go Nazi-Germany so to speak..all they could do is kill millions of people.. but they could never squeeze an empire out of their "victories" post-war because you can't control a nation from within that you just bombed into submission. These types of conquests and empires always crumble in no time. Germany's "1000 year Reich" lasted only three years. Wow. Both the US and Russia drowned in Afghanistan. Wow. And both the US and Russia have enough nukes to annihilate each other and the rest of the world 10 times over.. so they contain each other pretty well and for a long time already. So I contest your view of the US as some military hegemon imposing its will on the world. It simply isn't a reality.

US political power is not operating like an empire either. By and large all nation states in the world have political systems that operate independently from US politics. Influenced perhaps and to a degree.. but not at gun point.

Remains the US as an economic superpower. Yep. But certainly not a hegemon; the EU is the biggest economic block in the world, China in the top three.. and Russia, Germany, Japan formidable players in the major league.. and the wider remaining world in sum total still huge. No room for any hegemon there either.

Proof that the US is not a hegemon, nor the EU.. is the fact that most business, politics and military cooperation is based on free association. Portugal is not forced to stay in the EU or NATO. You can freely dissociate, leave EU, NATO. If of course.. your politicians can resist being bribed to stay in, because such efforts will be made. But that is only a small hurdle and merely the responsibility of your own gvt and depending on the quality of the democratic process.

Personally I don't care if Portugal associates or dissociates with/from a, b, or c. As with free speech.. making such decisions freely is a birth right.

[Endovelico]

Parodite,
You should consider that this is a war between those who want a unipolar world where freedom depends on the mood of one player, and a multipolar world where the weaker players may play one party against another, in order to squeeze a little more independence for themselves. I prefer a situation in which China and Russia counterbalance the American hegemonic tendencies, because that will give me a bit more room to make my own decisions. I don't much care about the authoritarian tendencies of the big players - all of them - as long as none of them can impose its will on me. That's why I hope Russia - and China - will be successful in pushing the US back, hopefully behind its own borders. In the international game of upstairs-downstairs you don't mind being downstairs as long as you may be allowed to play the role of butler. I don't care fore upstairs, but I also refuse any part on the downstairs charade. That's why I would have wanted an united Europe, but since the northern Europeans do not care for that - they prefer being servants to being their own masters - I would go and try to do it only with the southern Europeans.

I know that is what this is all about to you. Yes and no.

I don't think the US is the hegemon you take it be.. for starters! Even militarily.. the US is not able to achieve much anywhere in the world. Look at the list of recent failures. It is laughable. Even if they would resort to being 10x more brutal, even if they would unleash all of their military might and go Nazi-Germany so to speak..all they could do is kill millions of people.. but they could never squeeze an empire out of their "victories" post-war because you can't control a nation from within that you just bombed into submission. These types of conquests and empires always crumble in no time. Germany's "1000 year Reich" lasted only three years. Wow. Both the US and Russia drowned in Afghanistan. Wow. And both the US and Russia have enough nukes to annihilate each other and the rest of the world 10 times over.. so they contain each other pretty well and for a long time already. So I contest your view of the US as some military hegemon imposing its will on the world. It simply isn't a reality.

US political power is not operating like an empire either. By and large all nation states in the world have political systems that operate independently from US politics. Influenced perhaps and to a degree.. but not at gun point.

Remains the US as an economic superpower. Yep. But certainly not a hegemon; the EU is the biggest economic block in the world, China in the top three.. and Russia, Germany, Japan formidable players in the major league.. and the wider remaining world in sum total still huge. No room for any hegemon there either.

Proof that the US is not a hegemon, nor the EU.. is the fact that most business, politics and military cooperation is based on free association. Portugal is not forced to stay in the EU or NATO. You can freely dissociate, leave EU, NATO. If of course.. your politicians can resist being bribed to stay in, because such efforts will be made. But that is only a small hurdle and merely the responsibility of your own gvt and depending on the quality of the democratic process.

Personally I don't care if Portugal associates or dissociates with/from a, b, or c. As with free speech.. making such decisions freely is a birth right.

I think you are being a bit naive. We in Europe are almost totally conditioned by the US interests and policies. The fact that we antagonize Russia is not because Europeans, as a whole, want it, but because we are forced to do it by the US. Just look at what has happened when Germany and France tried to talk to Russia about the Ukraine. The US - and the UK - have done their best to torpedo the talks and their conclusions. And we are being forced into maintaining sanctions against Russia which are detrimental to us. Personally I'm fed up with being ordered about by the US.

[Parodite]

I think you are being a bit naive. We in Europe are almost totally conditioned by the US interests and policies. The fact that we antagonize Russia is not because Europeans, as a whole, want it, but because we are forced to do it by the US. Just look at what has happened when Germany and France tried to talk to Russia about the Ukraine. The US - and the UK - have done their best to torpedo the talks and their conclusions. And we are being forced into maintaining sanctions against Russia which are detrimental to us. Personally I'm fed up with being ordered about by the US.

I'm afraid you have it wrong. Western European countries simply agree most of the time with US policies. For people who disagree with those policies that is hard to swallow, obviously. From the past: it didn't help depicting Tony Blair as the poodle of the US.. he just agreed with Bush's policies on Iraq which is why they cooperated. To their own peril of course. The US and Europe don't always agree.. notably different European countries can differ with the US on certain actions. The image of the EU simply doing what the US is telling them to do... is kinda.. childish.

[Endovelico]

I think you are being a bit naive. We in Europe are almost totally conditioned by the US interests and policies. The fact that we antagonize Russia is not because Europeans, as a whole, want it, but because we are forced to do it by the US. Just look at what has happened when Germany and France tried to talk to Russia about the Ukraine. The US - and the UK - have done their best to torpedo the talks and their conclusions. And we are being forced into maintaining sanctions against Russia which are detrimental to us. Personally I'm fed up with being ordered about by the US.

I'm afraid you have it wrong. Western European countries simply agree most of the time with US policies. For people who disagree with those policies that is hard to swallow, obviously. From the past: it didn't help depicting Tony Blair as the poodle of the US.. he just agreed with Bush's policies on Iraq which is why they cooperated. To their own peril of course. The US and Europe don't always agree.. notably different European countries can differ with the US on certain actions. The image of the EU simply doing what the US is telling them to do... is kinda.. childish.

I wish you were right. But you aren't. And The Netherlands is a good example of a country that always follows the US dictum, always willing to fight the US wars. What will it take for Europeans to wake up?...

[Parodite]

I think you are being a bit naive. We in Europe are almost totally conditioned by the US interests and policies. The fact that we antagonize Russia is not because Europeans, as a whole, want it, but because we are forced to do it by the US. Just look at what has happened when Germany and France tried to talk to Russia about the Ukraine. The US - and the UK - have done their best to torpedo the talks and their conclusions. And we are being forced into maintaining sanctions against Russia which are detrimental to us. Personally I'm fed up with being ordered about by the US.

I'm afraid you have it wrong. Western European countries simply agree most of the time with US policies. For people who disagree with those policies that is hard to swallow, obviously. From the past: it didn't help depicting Tony Blair as the poodle of the US.. he just agreed with Bush's policies on Iraq which is why they cooperated. To their own peril of course. The US and Europe don't always agree.. notably different European countries can differ with the US on certain actions. The image of the EU simply doing what the US is telling them to do... is kinda.. childish.

I wish you were right. But you aren't. And The Netherlands is a good example of a country that always follows the US dictum, always willing to fight the US wars. What will it take for Europeans to wake up?...

Well, then we can agree to disagree. You seem to have psychic powers that I lack.. unfortunately. I just have to resort to following political discussions on these matters in the parliament via various news outlets. There is more debate and worry about the Dutch for instance going to the Sochi 2014 winter Olympics with a heavy delegation included the King, snuggling up with Putin himself. Especially the left here thinks of Putin as a homophobe autocrat anti-social thug oligarch. And support for US military interventions is in general not total nor blind at all and only after fierce debates in parliament. The left is usually somewhat split but in the ISIS case in full support too. On Afghanistan the Green (Groen Links / Green Left) party made a turn in the end when the Dutch decided to participate and they supported it.. but with a number of clauses. There is also always continuing debate and monitoring what happens on the ground. And what is learned. I have never seen US agents monitoring or trying to influence these discussions. I really think you have a wrong picture in your head about what is going on here.

[Endovelico]

I think you are being a bit naive. We in Europe are almost totally conditioned by the US interests and policies. The fact that we antagonize Russia is not because Europeans, as a whole, want it, but because we are forced to do it by the US. Just look at what has happened when Germany and France tried to talk to Russia about the Ukraine. The US - and the UK - have done their best to torpedo the talks and their conclusions. And we are being forced into maintaining sanctions against Russia which are detrimental to us. Personally I'm fed up with being ordered about by the US.

I'm afraid you have it wrong. Western European countries simply agree most of the time with US policies. For people who disagree with those policies that is hard to swallow, obviously. From the past: it didn't help depicting Tony Blair as the poodle of the US.. he just agreed with Bush's policies on Iraq which is why they cooperated. To their own peril of course. The US and Europe don't always agree.. notably different European countries can differ with the US on certain actions. The image of the EU simply doing what the US is telling them to do... is kinda.. childish.

I wish you were right. But you aren't. And The Netherlands is a good example of a country that always follows the US dictum, always willing to fight the US wars. What will it take for Europeans to wake up?...

Well, then we can agree to disagree. You seem to have psychic powers that I lack.. unfortunately. I just have to resort to following political discussions on these matters in the parliament via various news outlets. There is more debate and worry about the Dutch for instance going to the Sochi 2014 winter Olympics with a heavy delegation included the King, snuggling up with Putin himself. Especially the left here thinks of Putin as a homophobe autocrat anti-social thug oligarch. And support for US military interventions is in general not total nor blind at all and only after fierce debates in parliament. The left is usually somewhat split but in the ISIS case in full support too. On Afghanistan the Green (Groen Links / Green Left) party made a turn in the end when the Dutch decided to participate and they supported it.. but with a number of clauses. There is also always continuing debate and monitoring what happens on the ground. And what is learned. I have never seen US agents monitoring or trying to influence these discussions. I really think you have a wrong picture in your head about what is going on here.

I suppose one has to allow one's soldiers - particularly the professional kind - to go and fight a war once in a while, or else they will lose their sense of purpose... If there was conscription in The Netherlands I very much doubt the Dutch people would be willing to send their soldiers to die in Afghanistan. But I guess one is less sensitive to mercenary losses...

[YMix]

And who used violence exactly and on whose orders? This matters big time if you want to accuse of the West staging a "coup" there.

That's a good question and I don't have an answer. Since the money had come from Washington, I take it for granted that the US ambassador played a major role. Unless the CIA or FSB turn their reports over to the press, I'm afraid we'll have to wait 10-20 years for a good book on this subject.

And as for the level of democracy before and after that "coup"; in the end that is Ukraine's business and struggle that will to continue the coming decades. I posted an interesting link in the Ukraine thread about the political and democratic evolution in the Ukraine. As a democracy Ukraine is only 20 years old. Let's see where they are 10 years from now. Rome wasn't built in one day.

Ok.

Dodge. It sounds like under no circumstance you want foreign gvts or even NGOs support movements or groups of people in other nation states fighting for more democracy, less corruption etc. Interesting.

Once again we're back at the question: what do these NGOs mean by democracy? Or rather: what political/economic agenda is pushed along with democracy?

Sure. But storming the rada and ousting a corrupt crook oligarch president does not compare with annexing part of another countries territory using tanks. Nor does it compare with starting an armed separatist uprising predictably resulting in enormous bloodshed in civil war.

Feel free to show the same kind of evidence you asked for above. How do you know the Russians started the separatist uprising?

As for Crimea, there are opinions and opinions. Check out the interview I linked to with the Russian journalist fired by RFE.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. But also a strange observation. With their gaz sales and European dependencies, their robust arms industry with clients all over the world... they have extreme leverage in almost every geo-political power game.

Right now I fail to see their leverage in Europe.

A war that the Ukraine cannot fight or win? What is that about.

A war between the Ukrainian army and the Donetsk militias, armed and directed by the Russians.

I won't.

And here I was thinking that something is being done about the tax haven situation.

Didn't know it was.. still that bad in Romania. Sorry to hear that. In other instances before/after was definitely not a question of point of view, things in general were really better than before.

Well, we have more consumer toys. The place looks somewhat better. On the other hand, the number of Romanians earning the minimum salary is at an all-time high. And 2 million people had to leave.

Sarcasm?

I wish.

Interesting. Not looking for an argument here.. just didn't know. Links?

Hmmm, I thought I had posted more on this. Must have been at Tinker's.

If Russia helped the Romanians rid themselves of their psychopathic kleptomaniac dictator and his crazy wife... they get my tip to the hat and a big thank you. Praise where praise is due. Which of course would be a great lesson to some of the more bi-polar black-versus-white cheerleaders; it is better to look at events case by case and not resort to preassumed wrong/good doing because it was "the West", or "Russia" doing it.

They didn't "help" us. They didn't do it for us.

[Doc]

So who wants to be a fascist?

The ONLY Difference between the Nazis and the Stalinists was the Nazis wanted to kill people based on Race and the Stalinists wanted to kill people based on Class.

I want to see the local Putin lovers try to defend this without making ridiculous denials. But remember defending fascism makes one look like a Fascist

oVZjyyAE-78

[Typhoon]

So who wants to be a fascist?

The ONLY Difference between the Nazis and the Stalinists was the Nazis wanted to kill people based on Race and the Stalinists wanted to kill people based on Class.

I want to see the local Putin lovers try to defend this without making ridiculous denials. But remember defending fascism makes one look like a Fascist

oVZjyyAE-78

The Stalinist also killed people based on ethinicity: not Russian meant being targeted for mass murder.

[Doc]

So who wants to be a fascist?

The ONLY Difference between the Nazis and the Stalinists was the Nazis wanted to kill people based on Race and the Stalinists wanted to kill people based on Class.

I want to see the local Putin lovers try to defend this without making ridiculous denials. But remember defending fascism makes one look like a Fascist

oVZjyyAE-78

The Stalinist also killed people based on ethinicity: not Russian meant being targeted for mass murder.

That is true. It is amazing to me that the defenders of Putin are using the same excuses for Putin that Stalin and Hitler jointly used for their invasions of their neighbors. Most notably calling those they were trying to conquer "Fascists"

[Endovelico]

The Stalinist also killed people based on ethinicity: not Russian meant being targeted for mass murder.

Seeing that Stalin was not Russian, but Georgian, this is pure nonsense, as was to be expected.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

We should have a " Anti Russian Propaganda " thread and transfer all this to that thread

Russians were the one at Tsars times, Peter the Great, Catherine

Did at that time Russians engage in anything worst than west was .. did Russians have "slaves" .. did Russians bring in Blacks from Africa to built their "infrastructure", industry, railroad etc ? ?

No, they did not

Communism was not Russian .. Communism was a Jewish German invention, a conspiracy used to destroy Russia

Who were key leaders of USSR .. not Russians .. who was Trotzki ?

.

[Doc]

.

We should have a " Anti Russian Propaganda " thread and transfer all this to that thread

Russians were the one at Tsars times, Peter the Great, Catherine

Did at that time Russians engage in anything worst than west was .. did Russians have "slaves" .. did Russians bring in Blacks from Africa to built their "infrastructure", industry, railroad etc ? ?

No, they did not

Actually yes they did They were called "serfs"

Communism was not Russian .. Communism was a Jewish German invention, a conspiracy used to destroy Russia

Who were key leaders of USSR .. not Russians .. who was Trotzki ?

So you are self identifying as a fascist then?






























.

[Doc]

The Stalinist also killed people based on ethinicity: not Russian meant being targeted for mass murder.

Seeing that Stalin was not Russian, but Georgian, this is pure nonsense, as was to be expected.

Are you denying that Stalin did kill 7 million Ukrainians by starvation one the period of one year? If so do you actually believe that Putin is all that much different? Do you feel that political genocide such murder is justified if it cleanses society?

RRT_7UYAc_g

[Endovelico]

The Stalinist also killed people based on ethinicity: not Russian meant being targeted for mass murder.

Seeing that Stalin was not Russian, but Georgian, this is pure nonsense, as was to be expected.

Are you denying that Stalin did kill 7 million Ukrainians by starvation one the period of one year? If so do you actually believe that Putin is all that much different? Do you feel that political genocide such murder is justified if it cleanses society?

I don't understand what you mean. I was reacting to our East Asian usual nonsense. People may have died in the USSR because of the nature of the regime, not for ethnic reasons. Many Soviet leaders were not Russian. They were Georgian, Armenian, Ukrainian, etc Everybody knows this, so what is your point?...

[Doc]

The Stalinist also killed people based on ethinicity: not Russian meant being targeted for mass murder.

Seeing that Stalin was not Russian, but Georgian, this is pure nonsense, as was to be expected.

Are you denying that Stalin did kill 7 million Ukrainians by starvation one the period of one year? If so do you actually believe that Putin is all that much different? Do you feel that political genocide such murder is justified if it cleanses society?

I don't understand what you mean. I was reacting to our East Asian usual nonsense. People may have died in the USSR because of the nature of the regime, not for ethnic reasons. Many Soviet leaders were not Russian. They were Georgian, Armenian, Ukrainian, etc Everybody knows this, so what is your point?...

It wasn't just Ukrainians. Muslims in the Soviet army for example were not taught how to do things like read maps right up to the point that the Soviet Union broke up. They killed a lot of them as well. They killed large numbers in the Balkans.

But to lay any doubts to rest

The classes and the races to weak to master the new conditions of life must give way {..} They must perish in the revolutionary holocaust --Karl Marx

[Typhoon]

The Stalinist also killed people based on ethinicity: not Russian meant being targeted for mass murder.

Seeing that Stalin was not Russian, but Georgian, this is pure nonsense, as was to be expected.

Stalin was the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union,
i.e., Russia and the nations forced to join the SU through occupation, terror, mass murder, mass deportations -> genocide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_se ... viet_Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovietiza ... tic_states

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_de ... _Lithuania

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistor ... stalin.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

[Nonc Hilaire]

News flash - Stalin is still dead.

[Doc]

News flash - Stalin is still dead.

So are 20 ,000,000 people by his orders. But he didn't kill Putin

IARz_G1EHFk

[Heracleum Persicum]

.

We should have a " Anti Russian Propaganda " thread and transfer all this to that thread

Russians were the one at Tsars times, Peter the Great, Catherine

Did at that time Russians engage in anything worst than west was .. did Russians have "slaves" .. did Russians bring in Blacks from Africa to built their "infrastructure", industry, railroad etc ? ?

No, they did not

Actually yes they did They were called "serfs"

Serfs were Russians and no slaves ..

FYI, "Slave" is a "Chattel" .. same as horse and cattle and sheep and horse

Serfs were "low cast" workers that had to be paid a wage.

.

So you are self identifying as a fascist then ?

.

pls send "decoding key" to understand how you come to this weird conclusion

Needs a special arrogance, shooting to kill on daily basis blacks with hands in the air, spraying "Agent Orange" on a nation, carpet bombing Laos and Cambodia on rubbish excuse, arming terrorist in Afghanistan and Arab countries to counter Russians and now Iran, daily beheading .. and still posting on this fora doubling down

Give me a brake

.

[Doc]

.

We should have a " Anti Russian Propaganda " thread and transfer all this to that thread

Russians were the one at Tsars times, Peter the Great, Catherine

Did at that time Russians engage in anything worst than west was .. did Russians have "slaves" .. did Russians bring in Blacks from Africa to built their "infrastructure", industry, railroad etc ? ?

No, they did not

Actually yes they did They were called "serfs"

Serfs were Russians and no slaves ..{/quote]

Serfs were slaves in everything but name. In fact they were freed by royal decree. How do you free some that is not a slave?

"The Russian system dated back to 1649 and the introduction of a legal code which had granted total authority to the landowner to control the life and work of the peasant serfs who lived on his land. Since this included the power to deny the serf the right to move elsewhere, the difference between slavery and serfdom in practice was so fine as to be indistinguishable. The purpose behind the granting of such powers to the Russian dvoriane (nobility of landowners) in 1649 had been to make the nobles dependent on, and therefore loyal to, the tsar. They were to express that loyalty in practical form by serving the tsar as military officers or public officials. In this way the Romanov emperors built up Russia’s civil bureaucracy and the armed services as bodies of public servants who had a vested interest in maintaining the tsarist state. The serfs made up just over a third of the population and formed half of the peasantry. They were most heavily concentrated in the central and western provinces of Russia. - See more at: http://www.historytoday.com/michael-lyn ... HkNYZ.dpuf"

FYI, "Slave" is a "Chattel" .. same as horse and cattle and sheep and horse

Serfs were "low cast" workers that had to be paid a wage.

.

So you are self identifying as a fascist then ?

.

pls send "decoding key" to understand how you come to this weird conclusion

Needs a special arrogance, shooting to kill on daily basis blacks with hands in the air, spraying "Agent Orange" on a nation, carpet bombing Laos and Cambodia on rubbish excuse, arming terrorist in Afghanistan and Arab countries to counter Russians and now Iran, daily beheading .. and still posting on this fora doubling down

Give me a brake

.

Sure I can give you a break.

This is what you are defending If it goose steps like a duck and it demagogues like a duck it is a fascist duck

RRT_7UYAc_g